Sweden – Customs board distressed Russian vessel in Swedish waters

After a Russian vessel had engine trouble and entered Swedish territorial waters, Swedish Customs boarded the vessel and commenced an investigation into whether possible sanctions or export control offences may have been committed.

The vessel, the Adler, is designated under EU sanctions, and the owner sanctioned by the US. It is reported that the cargo included arms and military equipment.

It is now being reported that the vessel has been allowed to depart Swedish waters, after the Prosecutor’s Office declined to open a criminal investigation, on the basis that there was no intent to being the vessel or its goods into Sweden.

Sweden – Swedish Customs sanctions enforcement

The Swedish Police have issued a report on sanctions compliance in the country, concluding that trade flows to countries neighbouring Russia suggests Swedish involvement in the circumvention of the EU’s sanctions.

In relation to the work of Swedish customs, the report noted that in 2023 more than 200 export shipments were stopped, and that 3,000 export declarations in 2024 were “subject to special review measures”.

The press release to the report notes that “a handful of preliminary investigations [are] underway regarding sanctions violations at the Police Authority and at Swedish Customs”.

The report also highlights an earlier 2024 report by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority on the outcome of its review of the sanctions screening processes and methodologies of 19 banks operating in Sweden. The report noted that none of the banks assessed had good enough automatic screening in place, but that the larger banks were better at screening than the small and medium sized banks.

Sweden, Estonia and Lithuania: investigations opened into funding provided by Russian designated person

Further to our earlier post regarding an investigation in Latvia into the activities of the designated Russian state entity “Pravfond”, it has now been reported that a number of other investigations are ongoing in relation to this entity’s activities:

1) An investigation has been commenced in Sweden in relation to a school that had associations with Pravfond;

2) In Estonia a multiple investigations (by the criminal authorities and the bar association) have been opened in relation to lawyers who accepted funds from Pravfond; and

3) In Lithuania a criminal investigation has been opened (as well as one by the bar association) into lawyers who took funds from Pravfond.

    Sweden – companies called to Foreign Ministry to explain possible circumvention

    It is being reported (e.g. here and here) that a number of large Swedish companies have been called to the Foreign Ministry to attend a meeting also attended by a number of other authorities.

    The meeting concerned information received by Sweden from the European Commission about exports to Russia which may have been in breach of, or circumvented, the EU’s sanctions.

    The companies called to attend the meeting included Atlas Copco, Ericsson, Volvo, SKF and Sandvik.

    The companies deny breaches of sanctions.

    The Swedish authorities are now considering what further action to take.

    Latvia – investigation into bunkering vessel refueling Russian “shadow fleet”

    A vessel owned by a Latvian company is providing bunkering (i.e. refueling) services to the Russian “shadow fleet” in the Baltic sea off the coast of Gotland in Sweden.

    A spokesman for the Latvian Foreign Ministry has stated that an investigation is now underway to see if the Latvian company is breaching or circumventing EU sanctions, in particular whether the fuel being supplied is of Russian origin.

    The Latvian company, Fastbunkering, denies breaching sanctions.

    It is noteworthy that just two days ago the Swedish authorities were reported as having closed an investigation into these same possible breaches of sanctions.

    A Swedish prosecutor was reported as having stated: “I have made the assessment that it is not worth requesting legal aid from Latvia because it is not expected to lead to a higher penalty than a fine“.

    © 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

    The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

    Proudly powered by WordPress